|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Z. wrote:
Peter writes: Bill Z. wrote: (JFJones) writes: Unlike cynical Bill, some people have ethical values that prevent them becoming lawbreakers. They quit cycling through self-enforcement or in the case of kids parental enforcement. Some of us are ethical enough to report what we see accurately. On quite a number of occassions around here, I've seen kids riding without helmets and the police ignoring them, and this is in a state where we do have a helmet law that applies to anyone 17 (18?) or under. Of course this says nothing to refute the statement by Jones which was about self-enforcement and parental enforcement and specifically not about police enforcement. It refutes what he said, which was a baseless personal attack about my ethics, when I merely reported the behavior I've observed. You stated (and continue to state) that if a law is not enforced by the police then it must not have any effect on people. He was pointing out that that won't be true for people who choose to obey laws for reasons not directly related to police enforcement. Repeating your previous observation about lack of police enforcement is in no way a refutation. And his comments about "self-enforcement and parental enforcement" are pure BS - he hasn't shown that most people have a clue that a helmet law exists. It was sort of publicized when the California one was passed, but that was some 10 years ago and there hasn't been a word since. If you moved to the state more recently, or weren't interested in cycling when the law was passed, you wouldn't have a clue that there was such a law. Not true if you have kids who attend school. The helmet law and the school's policy regarding it were mentioned several times at Back-to- School events for parents. Notices about the law are also posted in most state parks that I've visited as well as school bulletin boards. My commute route goes past an elementary school, an intermediate school, and a high school. I still see a considerable number of kids cycling, albeit not nearly as many as before the helmet law was passed. Almost all have helmets, but only about 20% of those helmets are on their heads - most of the others are dangling from the handlebars. Which is illegal. Did the police notify their parents? What police? The police presumably have better things to do. Most of my observations of children riding to school have been on a bike trail where I've only seen one police officer in the last ten years. He was hiding behind a bush with his radar gun on the only downhill in 30 miles of trail steep enough to let cyclists slightly exceed the 15 mph speed limit by coasting. But as I said, the presence of helmets shows that the schools, possibly with help from the parents, are enforcing the rule at the end of the ride, i.e. upon arrival at the school. The fact that the helmets are not being worn is a good indication that the kids dislike the helmet rule and that its existence is likely to serve as a disincentive to ride for some fraction of them. |
Ads |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
maxo :
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 16:10:06 +0000, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote: Helmet laws do nothing to stop people from riding like idiots. They do! They do! I just think this is an absurd way to go about public safety. I'm no more against helmets than seatbelts and airbags. [...] You're of course free to have an opiinion on everything, but this is somewhat misleading. There is a difference. Seatbelts work. So do airbags, to a much lesser extend and only when combined with a properly worn belts. Bicycle helmets, on the other hand, have been shown _not_ to work. -- Radhelme sind die Bachblüten des Straßenverkehrs |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Peter writes:
Bill Z. wrote: Peter writes: Bill Z. wrote: (JFJones) writes: You stated (and continue to state) that if a law is not enforced by the police then it must not have any effect on people. He was pointing out that that won't be true for people who choose to obey laws for reasons not directly related to police enforcement. Repeating your previous observation about lack of police enforcement is in no way a refutation. Now you are lying. He made a statement about *my* ethics when I reported the observed behavior, and he made no statement about others. And he provided no evidence regarding what typical behavior is. If you think it is to obey the law, I suggest you compare how fast people drive above the speed limit when the police are present and when they are not. Or, if you don't want to time that, sit at an intersection with a traffic light for 10 minutes and count the red light runners. People run red lights all the time around here - way too often for it to be by accident, and even though red light running can get people killed. Oh, and to be conservative, I only count it as really running the light if the light had turned green in on the cross street when they enter the intersection, to eliminate confusion over short yellow phases. And his comments about "self-enforcement and parental enforcement" are pure BS - he hasn't shown that most people have a clue that a helmet law exists. It was sort of publicized when the California one was passed, but that was some 10 years ago and there hasn't been a word since. If you moved to the state more recently, or weren't interested in cycling when the law was passed, you wouldn't have a clue that there was such a law. Not true if you have kids who attend school. The helmet law and the school's policy regarding it were mentioned several times at Back-to- School events for parents. Notices about the law are also posted in most state parks that I've visited as well as school bulletin boards. Your school's policies have nothing to do with wearing a helmet on a city street. At most they can require a helmet while on school property, and any flyers and other such information will be widely ignored. I get all sorts of information in utility fliers, for example, and that goes directly into the trash - it resembles advertising and if it looks like advertising, it gets treated as advertising. Also, in poorer communities (where the level of helmet use seems to be far lower than in the more affluent communities), chances are that any such law is not mentioned at all. They have more important issues to handle and very limited resources. Which is illegal. Did the police notify their parents? What police? The police presumably have better things to do. Oh, so you admit the law isn't being enforced and people are breaking it. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Wolfgang Strobl writes:
maxo : On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 16:10:06 +0000, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote: Helmet laws do nothing to stop people from riding like idiots. They do! They do! I just think this is an absurd way to go about public safety. I'm no more against helmets than seatbelts and airbags. [...] You're of course free to have an opiinion on everything, but this is somewhat misleading. There is a difference. Seatbelts work. So do airbags, to a much lesser extend and only when combined with a properly worn belts. Bicycle helmets, on the other hand, have been shown _not_ to work. Wolfgang is back, repeating the same things he's said for years. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Michael wrote:
I'm willing to bet I'd either be dead or drooling on myself if I didn't have that helmet on. And I'm willing to bet you wouldn't. Why? Because the absolutely _tremendous_ rise in bike helmet use hasn't caused a significant change in serious head injuries per cyclist. In fact, if anything, there are more head injuries per cyclist than before. If all these helmets are really doing what you believe, the benefits should be detectable. Much more likely, IMO: all these helmets are producing stories that go like this: "Wow, dude, my helmet touched the ground!!! It must have saved my life!!!" And 20 years ago, that story would have been "Darn, I _almost_ bumped my head a little." since then? I ride to the store 1/2 a block away I'm wearin it. Hey, don't stop there. You do lots of other things with more risk of head injury. Walking down stairs? Climbing a ladder? Walking across the street? Strap that baby on! -- --------------------+ Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com, replace with cc.ysu dot edu] |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
VBadJuJu wrote:
Doctors used to think bleeding a patient to let out the bad humors was a good idea. People used to take mercury for pain relief. People used to eat and drink from lead untesils. People used to think Wal-Mart bikes were a value decision. People used to think the worl was a flat disk resting on a turtle's back. Times change and people (most of them) learn things. But for every mistaken myth corrected, there seems to be a replacement myth that's just about as silly. Some people now believe that drinking water with an absolutely undetectable trace of a substance vaguely related to a disease will cure that disease. (Look up "homeopathy.") Some people believe that hanging crystals from their rear view mirrors will prevent car crashes. Some people believe keeping kids indoors, never letting them cross a street, never letting them play out of the sight of an adult, never letting them climb trees or wrestle or tumble, will still allow them to grow to be normal adults. And some people believe a thin styrofoam hat, specified and tested to protect only a body-less head against a less-than-15mph impact, will somehow save a life when a person is hit by a 35mph car. They believe this despite all the evidence that it's not working. -- --------------------+ Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com, replace with cc.ysu dot edu] |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Z. wrote:
Wolfgang is back, repeating the same things he's said for years. :-) :-) :-) Can you believe it's Bill Zaumen saying that? :-) -- --------------------+ Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com, replace with cc.ysu dot edu] |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
(JFJones) writes:
(Bill Z.) wrote in message ... (JFJones) writes: Zaumen makes a statement about zero impact of helmet laws and then posts a non-sequitur about the kids he sees on the street. Wasn't this about the ones that quit? Idiot. The only "idiots" are people like Jones, who now is trying to change the topic. The issue was not if a few people quit, but if people quit in any significant numbers. Unenforced, poorly advertised, and widely ignored laws are not going to cause people to give up cycling in any significant numbers. The idea that a helmet law, under these circumstances, would have any noticable impact on the number of cyclists out there is just plain silly. It's about as silly as the religious right wing's apparent belief that two guys walking down the street holding hands in San Francisco is somehow going to break up a marriage in Ohio (to give an example using the hot-button issue du jour.) My guess is that Jones is a Bush supporter---he's sufficiently out of touch with the real world. Any bets? Well? No reply, I see. :-) -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
published helmet research - not troll | Frank Krygowski | Social Issues | 1716 | October 24th 04 06:39 AM |
Another doctor questions helmet research | JFJones | General | 80 | August 16th 04 10:44 AM |
First Helmet : jury is out. | Walter Mitty | General | 125 | June 26th 04 02:00 AM |
Fule face helmet - review | Mikefule | Unicycling | 8 | January 14th 04 05:56 PM |